Drug testing?

[Madness]

My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.

And I'm suggesting that by using a swab test rather than a piss test, the power to further reduce the risk is in no way diminished or reduced.

Balanced and reasoned? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ! You refuse to take anything on board from any point of view than your own. And then you misrepresent what is said and argue with that instead. "Debate", that is not. "Reasoned", something I don't think you comprehend.

I misrepresent what is said? Show me where I stated that I don't think drug testing is required, it never happened. Please stop misrepresenting what is said Drew, it makes you look like even more of a cock, if that's possible.

And if this discussion contained nothing more than the arguments of "I don't do drugs, therefore nobody else should" it would be more balanced? You're the one who has on several occasions had to concede that you didn't know what the fuck it was that you were talking about. I am not privy to disciplinary records, which is why I asked about any specific cases where Cannabis has compromised the sport - I'm yet to be told of any though, eh Sherlock?

OK. In that instance, I would ask (at the same time as unintentionally confirming) why the club needed the info. Failing a satisfactory response, I would make formal complaint. Were my complaint not met with a satisfactory result still, I'D DECIDE WHETHER I STILL WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE SPORT JUST LIKE ANY DRUG USER HAS THE POWER TO DO.

And I'm asking for a satisfactory reason as to why SNZ has any business knowing what someone did up to 6 weeks prior to a race meeting. So far all I've got is "but it's illegal" and "anyone who tests positive must therefore have a habit". These reasons don't stack up against an attempt at reducing risk on-track in my mind whilst other, possibly better methods remain available, for an apparent extra $4.00 per test (I'm assuming that's inclusive of 15% GST, which would probably also be tax-deductible).

[Drew]

And I'm suggesting that by using a swab test rather than a piss test, the power to further reduce the risk is in no way diminished or reduced.

To which I have repeatedly replied. Why should we/they have to?

I misrepresent what is said? Show me where I stated that I don't think drug testing is required, it never happened. Please stop misrepresenting what is said Drew, it makes you look like even more of a cock.

Given present company, I'm comfortable with however I might appear.

And if this discussion contained nothing more than the arguments of "I don't do drugs, therefore nobody else should" it would be more balanced? You're the one who has on several occasions had to concede that you didn't know what the fuck it was that you were talking about.

I dunno that twice, is fairly represented by "several". Nor would I further concede that "I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about".

I am not privy to disciplinary records, which is why I asked about any specific cases where Cannabis has compromised the sport - I'm yet to be told of any though, eh Sherlock?

When I used "discaplines", I was refering to the different types of racing. The point of which was that you know nothing about whether drugs have been a factor in any incidents.

And I'm asking for a satisfactory reason as to why SNZ has any business knowing what someone did up to 6 weeks prior to a race meeting. So far all I've got is "but it's illegal" and "anyone who tests positive must therefore have a habit". These reasons don't stack up against an attempt at reducing risk on-track in my mind whilst other methods remain available, for an apparent extra $4.00 per test (I'm assuming that's inclusive of 15% GST, which would probably be tax-deductible).

You are welcome to join the appropriate clubs who's practices you aren't happy with then and make your concerns known and formal, to seek the satisfaction your rantings on here are not giving you.

[haydes55]

Urine tests pick up any drug that is still in the body which could negatively effect safety.

Swab test check what has been smoked recently.

Your argument is that people should be able to smoke weed when they want (that's an issue for legalising, not tolerated in racing). Fair enough. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to smoke weed, then when racing is on stop a few days before and be sweet.

Now the issue is, a swab test would tell only recent weed smoking, which would wok. But then drugs which never pass the lips, wouldn't be detected. So to pander to those who want to smoke C class drugs, we need to let A class drugs pass? For those who can't go without a fix, would they not start injecting?

[Madness]

To which I have repeatedly replied. Why should we/they have to?

Why not? Your previous uninformed argument of a higher cost has been blown apart. The agencies tasked with enforcing our drug laws don't use the methods being adopted by SNZ so why the fuck not conform with what is accepted as best practice by people who probably know a thing or two about the subject?

Given present company, I'm comfortable with however I might appear.

No worries, I was brought up to be nice to retards.

I dunno that twice, is fairly represented by "several". Nor would I further concede that "I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about".

Several >1. You don't have to concede it Drew, it's apparent to anyone who can read.

When I used "discaplines", I was refering to the different types of racing. The point of which was that you know nothing about whether drugs have been a factor in any incidents.

Correct, which is why I asked for examples, seeing as I have an open mind & am prepared to look at a situation from other perspectives. Still no examples forthcoming, just like your example of my misrepresentation of what is said. Come on Drew, you can do better than this, it's like arguing with 'spokes FFS!

You are welcome to join the appropriate clubs who's practices you aren't happy with then and make your concerns known and formal, to seek the satisfaction your rantings on here are not giving you.

Don't need to, I'm having enough fun ranting on the internet about it.

You got anything, I mean ANYTHING?

[Drew]

Why not? Your previous uninformed argument of a higher cost has been blown apart. The agencies tasked with enforcing our drug laws don't use the methods being adopted by SNZ so why the fuck not conform with what is accepted as best practice by people who probably know a thing or two about the subject?

$4 representing a precentage of 20. That's a substantially great cost.

No worries, I was brought up to be nice to retards.

Was this after you were caught fighting with the other kids in special ed'?

Several >1. You don't have to concede it Drew, it's apparent to anyone who can read.

I usually know pretty early when I've chosen the wrong side of an argument to go onendlessly about round here. Every bastard I've ever been cheeky to comes on and starts telling me to fuck up. Since this is our first 'set to' that I can think of, you don't count by the way.

Correct, which is why I asked for examples, seeing as I have an open mind & am prepared to look at a situation from other perspectives. Still no examples forthcoming, just like your example of my misrepresentation of what is said. Come on Drew, you can do better than this, it's like arguing with 'spokes FFS!

I am certainly not about to make any information I might/not have about specific cases, public for the sake of this load of old tripe!

Don't need to, I'm having enough fun ranting on the internet about it.

You got anything, I mean ANYTHING?

I've got something alright. I've got your missus pussy on my breath, and I tell you she needs to shower more often!

[Madness]

Urine tests pick up any drug that is still in the body which could negatively effect safety.

Swab test check what has been smoked recently.

Your argument is that people should be able to smoke weed when they want (that's an issue for legalising, not tolerated in racing). Fair enough. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to smoke weed, then when racing is on stop a few days before and be sweet.

Now the issue is, a swab test would tell only recent weed smoking, which would wok. But then drugs which never pass the lips, wouldn't be detected. So to pander to those who want to smoke C class drugs, we need to let A class drugs pass? For those who can't go without a fix, would they not start injecting?

Are you serious? Injecting Cannabis? You really think there are people who can afford to race and Class-A drugs?

I think you've been sucked in. Did NZDDA screen this movie during their presentation by any chance?

My argument is that people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to do 4,5 or 6 weeks prior to going onto an event, providing it has no bearing on safety in an amateur sport.

[Madness]

$4 representing a precentage of 20. That's a substantially great cost.

So pass it on to those who opt for it over a piss test?

Was this after you were caught fighting with the other kids in special ed'?

Yes and I can see you still carry the emotional scars to this day. Sorry spaz.

I usually know pretty early when I've chosen the wrong side of an argument to go onendlessly about round here. Every bastard I've ever been cheeky to comes on and starts telling me to fuck up. Since this is our first 'set to' that I can think of, you don't count by the way.

You've lost me champ.

I am certainly not about to make any information I might/not have about specific cases, public for the sake of this load of old tripe!

And you're seemingly not about to show where I've misrepresented what is said either. Fail.

I've got something alright. I've got your missus pussy on my breath, and I tell you she needs to shower more often!

Fair enough. Must be frustrating getting no pussy after marrying a trannie.

[Drew]

Are you serious? Injecting Cannabis? You really think there are people who can afford to race and Class-A drugs?

Fucken oath the can! You are very very naive if you think otherwise. You have been to the speedway eh? There is a metric fucken shit tonne of money involved in some of the wallets of drivers/teams.

I think you've been sucked in. Did NZDDA screen this movie during their presentation by any chance?

Oh yeah, you know him well enough to make that judgement.

My argument is that people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to do 4,5 or 6 weeks prior to going onto an event, providing it has no bearing on safety in an amateur sport.

I'll offer you a sound solution then, and you try and sell it to competitors who use drugs.

How about they pay for their own test the morning of an event. One that proves they are not under any influence, but will probably show traces of THC. See what they think of the idea of having to admit to it, before proving they're safe to compete. Yeah, it'll go down like a cup of cold sick. Now fuck off ya raving cock wallet!

[Madness]

Fucken oath the can! You are very very naive if you think otherwise. You have been to the speedway eh? There is a metric fucken shit tonne of money involved in some of the wallets of drivers/teams.

You have been to Rosebank eh Drew?

Oh yeah, you know him well enough to make that judgement.

I'll make that judgement about anyone who suggests that recreational Cannabis users would consider administering the substance hyperdermically.

I'll offer you a sound solution then, and you try and sell it to competitors who use drugs.

How about they pay for their own test the morning of an event. One that proves they are not under any influence, but will probably show traces of THC. See what they think of the idea of having to admit to it, before proving they're safe to compete. Yeah, it'll go down like a cup of cold sick. Now fuck off ya raving cock wallet!

So you're suggesting what I've been arguing for this entire thread, but you've added that they pay for it? I'll call that a win.

Now fuck off yourself, some muppet somewhere needs assistance doing wheelies on their GN - something you might actually be capable of contributing to.

[Drew]

So pass it on to those who opt for it over a piss test?

I addressed this in my last post. You sell it to the 'smokers'.

Yes and I can see you still carry the emotional scars to this day. Sorry spaz.

If we've ever gone toe to toe, ya must hit like a truck or a bitch. 'Cause I don't remember it.

You've lost me champ.

Doesn't mean anything I said needed to be that difficult to understand.

And you're seemingly not about to show where I've misrepresented what is said either. Fail.

Have I not? The debacle of you focusing on the inaccuracy of my analogies, rather than the point being made doesn't count. Must be my mistake then, what a hypocrite I am.

Fair enough. Must be frustrating getting no pussy after marrying a trannie.

That's funny. I asked her if she'd met you. Yes, and her opinion of you is similarly high if the look of disgust was anything to go by.

[haydes55]

Answer to question is a bit of a no-brainer I would think....

.... I wish everyone knew this was a no brainer.

[Drew]

You have been to Rosebank eh Drew?

Nope. Might have driven through it on the way to an install.

I'll make that judgement about anyone who suggests that recreational Cannabis users would consider administering the substance hyperdermically.

I think the implication was that what you would have 'users' do, is take A class drugs instead.

So you're suggesting what I've been arguing for this entire thread, but you've added that they pay for it? I'll call that a win.

Now fuck off yourself, some muppet somewhere needs assistance doing wheelies on their GN - something you might actually be capable of contributing to.

You can call it whatever you want. But I doubt that's the case, since I bet NONE of the smokers show up with cup'o'pee saying. "Fuck yeah, I blaze up. I aint high now though, lemme drive/ride".

[Madness]

Have I not? The debacle of you focusing on the inaccuracy of my analogies, rather than the point being made doesn't count. Must be my mistake then, what a hypocrite I am.

Your analogies again, fucking gems of intelligence they were.

My meaning in my analogies was simple I think. Just because it hasn't been a problem, doesn't mean it won't. If we have the power to further reduce that risk, the precedent of not having done so is irrelevant.

Let builders and the like fall from the roof of a building site, and sod training them in safe prceedure.

Because no builder has ever fallen from a roof?

Let doctors operate with dirty hands, and utensiles.

Because no patient has ever had an infection resulting from an operation?

No, your analogies were shit I'm afraid. This one was much more relevant, yet you decided not to respond to it, because you've got nothing.

On the contrary, a better analogy to this discussion would be a situation where all doctors had to live in a bubble, so they didn't ever come in contact with germs, even 6 weeks prior to operating, regardless of the fact that a simple scrub down prior to entering the theatre would suffice in minimising the risk of infection.

Admit it, you're impaired!

[Drew]

Your analogies again, fucking gems of intelligence they were.





Because no builder has ever fallen from a roof?



Because no patient has ever had an infection resulting from an operation?

No, your analogies were shit I'm afraid. This one was much more relevant, yet you decided not to respond to it, because you've got nothing.



Admit it, you're impaired!

I'm impaired? You are not just implying that no one has ever been hurt on a track with drugs being a factor, it's the only conclusion I can draw from the way you say my analogies are wrong.

[Madness]

Nope. Might have driven through it on the way to an install.

So your earlier comment was again unqualified & irrelevant then?